U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.


Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately. This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whoel" that is what has a market.

If your
point were true, then the Washington Post could use entire stories from
competitors' papers, verbatim, without having to pay syndication costs.

nonsense. teh washington psot is a commercial publisher and competitor
of wother newspapers. I can do things that they cannot

Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story. For a
parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered under
copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would not.


it is "covered under copyright" but at least in traditonal analysis the
album not the song is the work as a whole. the development of digital
media and the capability of selling individual songs hs arguably changed
this argument.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its entirety,
the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the "substantiality"
part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A sentence or so, up to a
paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole story.


Nonsense.
Factual works are simply less protected, since thereis no copyright in
the underlying facts.

so on all of the above the copying news stories for the purpose of
criticizing the reporting is fair use.


Nope. Using *excerpts* from a story might be okay, if you hadn't posted
the entire story. And as far as "criticism" goes, there wasn't any
criticism attached to the first post.

Except that psoting here can be for the purpose of inspiring criticism.


So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.


The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since it's
trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would probably
fall through, too.

that is not part of the purpose and character element, but the "effect
on the market" element.


The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.


This is actually a respectable issue, if they sell individual articles
in the aftermarket.


Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.


There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot of
people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all of it.

Sure, but you Suggested I was not. I psot under my real name and its
easy to check.



It's like the old joke: "What do you call someone who graduated last in
his class at the worst medical school?" "Doctor."

(You should have noticed by now that "argument from authority" doesn't
fly too well on Usenet. But I've noticed that many lawyers rely on that
when they have a really weak case.)

As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis and
commentary.
that is why users has a correspondingly large right to "fair use"

Vince Brannigan

In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

(the relevant law is attached to the end of this post)

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.

Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately.

Actually, yes, sold separately. This story is available for the
syndication market, by itself. And since you obviously don't know this:
a work does not even have to be *published* to be covered under
copyright.

This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whoel" that is what has a market.

Sorry, that's not how copyright works.

If your point were true, then the Washington Post could use entire
stories from competitors' papers, verbatim, without having to pay
syndication costs.

nonsense. teh washington psot is a commercial publisher and
competitor of wother newspapers. I can do things that they cannot

....but not republish entire stories from their paper. That's why
there's "fair use," which you broke quite nicely. That's also why most
honest college professors, when collecting large numbers of complete
pieces for their class handouts, get permission fromm the copyright
holders. Many don't, but that doesn't make them right

Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story.
For a parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered
under copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would
not.

it is "covered under copyright" but at least in traditonal analysis
the album not the song is the work as a whole. the development of
digital media and the capability of selling individual songs hs
arguably changed this argument.

Nope. This has *never* been the case, and you're deeply wrong about
this. A work in a compilation is still a work in itself, and is covered
by copyright. A single poem out of a volume of poetry would not be
covered under your interpretation, and that's certainly not the case.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its entirety,
the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the "substantiality"
part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A sentence or so, up to a
paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole story.

Nonsense.
Factual works are simply less protected, since thereis no copyright in
the underlying facts.

*Facts* are not covered, but *works* are.

You can write your own story, using the same facts, but reprinting an
article by someone else is, plain and simple, a copyright violation.

Except that psoting here can be for the purpose of inspiring criticism.

Posting less-substantial pieces, maybe. Posting the whole article,
without previous permissions from the owner, is a copyright violation.

So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.

RIAA versus all of those people swapping MP3s. Since you contend that a
single song is not covered like a whole album, then someone bootlegging
songs on Napster would have been free and clear.

But they weren't.

The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since it's
trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would probably
fall through, too.

that is not part of the purpose and character element, but the "effect
on the market" element.

See below. "Purpose and character' covers why you're posting someone
else's work. If you had a good purpose, posting a link would show that,
plus moderate the "character" guideline.

The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.

This is actually a respectable issue, if they sell individual articles
in the aftermarket.

They do. It's called "syndication." It's been the standard for longer
than I've been alive. If you're interested in posting entire stories to
Usenet, call the newspaper involved and ask them for rates. If you want
to reprint a New York Times story in your school paper, you can buy it -
and often even get it for free, if you ask them nicely.

But you have to get *permission*, either way, from the copyright holder.

Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot of
people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all of it.

Sure, but you Suggested I was not. I psot under my real name and its
easy to check.

You seem to think I care. I don't. Even if you're really a lawyer,
you're obviously not well informed about copyright laws.

As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis
and commentary. that is why users has a correspondingly large right
to "fair use"

"Fair use" would have been a paragraph, or a summary of the story
involved, with a link the the original. What you do is pretty much just
laziness.








Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Chad Irby wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:


(the relevant law is attached to the end of this post)


Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.

Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately.


Actually, yes, sold separately. This story is available for the
syndication market, by itself. And since you obviously don't know this:
a work does not even have to be *published* to be covered under
copyright.

It si still sold as aprt of a newspaper.


of course since this was the harpur and roe decsion involving the Nixon
pardon.



This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whole" that is what has a market.


Sorry, that's not how copyright works.

It depends on where the copying took place.




Posting less-substantial pieces, maybe. Posting the whole article,
without previous permissions from the owner, is a copyright violation.


nonsense. There is also the test of immediacy.



So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.


RIAA versus all of those people swapping MP3s. Since you contend that a
single song is not covered like a whole album, then someone bootlegging
songs on Napster would have been free and clear.

I siad in the tradtional view. it is clear that electronic copying has
changed both the technolgy and the law with regard to music.


You seem to think I care. I don't. Even if you're really a lawyer,
you're obviously not well informed about copyright laws.


As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis
and commentary. that is why users has a correspondingly large right
to "fair use"


"Fair use" would have been a paragraph, or a summary of the story
involved, with a link the the original. What you do is pretty much just
laziness.


its simply not required. if tehre was a respectable appellate cite
supproting your positon Im sure you would have presented it.

Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

Actually, yes, sold separately. This story is available for the
syndication market, by itself. And since you obviously don't know this:
a work does not even have to be *published* to be covered under
copyright.

It si still sold as aprt of a newspaper.

And it still doesn't invalidate the copyright for the individual article.

of course since this was the harpur and roe decsion involving the Nixon
pardon.

Actually, the Harper and Row case was on the right of first publication
("confidentiality and creative control"), and went to use, not
substantiality (even though there was a good substantiality argument
because of the relevance of the quoted pieces). And even at that, the
quoted piece was less than 400 words out of an entire *book*, much less
than the 100% of a newspaper article quoted here.

It depends on where the copying took place.

According to US law it doesn't as long as you're in the US when you did
it.

Posting less-substantial pieces, maybe. Posting the whole article,
without previous permissions from the owner, is a copyright violation.

nonsense. There is also the test of immediacy.

Nope. As long as it's still under copyright, it's covered.

"Fair use" would have been a paragraph, or a summary of the story
involved, with a link the the original. What you do is pretty much just
laziness.

its simply not required. if tehre was a respectable appellate cite
supproting your positon Im sure you would have presented it.

Princeton University Press versus Michigan Document Services, Inc.

A company that made "coursepacks" for teachers got dinged on this one,
despite only using bits and pieces of many smaller works.

And I'm sure that if you really knew what you were talking about, being
a lawyer and all, you'd be able to find a case that *didn't* go in favor
of the plaintiff in fair use, instead of one that supports *my* point...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.